Hillary's situation was a little bit different if I understand correctly and while definitely unethical not technically illegal on her part, but thats another conversation.

I think that even if classified documents were in Trump's possession it might be difficult to prove a criminal case. Given that he probably didn't do all the packing and moving himself there is a large window of doubt as to whether he took them or someone else placed them in a box destined for his house. Classified documents are also supposed to have a sort of custody log if I understand correctly so that would need to be investigated too.

No. Hillary's situation was completely different. In her case, she did not have declassification authority nor were the documents in question declassified. She stored classified documents outside of a classified facility. The problem was she deleted them before the investigation completed.

No. Hillary's situation was completely different. In her case, she did not have declassification authority nor were the documents in question declassified. She stored classified documents outside of a classified facility. The problem was she deleted them before the investigation completed.

She had emails with classified information on her servers but there were a couple of key factors.
#1. She was the recipient of those emails, not the sender.
#2. The emails containing the classified information were not marked declassified so it becomes difficult to impossible to prove she could have known it was classified.

You still aren't using the term whataboutism correctly but that aside, yes I am making a position. I learned enough to justify taking a solid stance.

As to taking a picture and then whiting out words on the documents I don't know the specifics of how the words were whited out but I have done enough photo editing to know it is quite easy to do without being reversible.
As to why? I would guess that if they didn't release the photos then Trump and his supporters would claim lack of photos meant Trump was being framed. Given the polarizing and high profile nature of this investigation I agree with the decision to release a redacted photo over releasing nothing.

What if your source for info is anti trump?

Is your source a DOD high level, at the top type of employee who might know the SOP or a level lower than i just mentioned.

Is your source an attorney who has represented any former potus so they have XP in the matter and thus spend hundreda of billable hours doing research.

What if the FBI is planting docs since everyone was kicked out of the room.

What if they were all declassified since Trump wasnt allowed to prove himself yet.

What if the 4th amdendment was ignored.

Its fun to play whataboutism.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Hillary's situation was a little bit different if I understand correctly and while definitely unethical not technically illegal on her part, but thats another conversation.

I think that even if classified documents were in Trump's possession it might be difficult to prove a criminal case. Given that he probably didn't do all the packing and moving himself there is a large window of doubt as to whether he took them or someone else placed them in a box destined for his house. Classified documents are also supposed to have a sort of custody log if I understand correctly so that would need to be investigated too.

Not technically illegal? Ok because she was “recipient”? Mmmkay…

She had emails with classified information on her servers but there were a couple of key factors.
#1. She was the recipient of those emails, not the sender.
#2. The emails containing the classified information were not marked declassified so it becomes difficult to impossible to prove she could have known it was classified.

#1 = spillage
#2 if they were not marked declassified they were still classified. The servers were outside of a SCIF.

Not technically illegal? Ok because she was “recipient”? Mmmkay…

So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?

#1 = spillage
#2 if they were not marked declassified they were still classified. The servers were outside of a SCIF.

Spillage?
The emails were never marked classified even though they should have been. They contained information that was classified but it was not marked such as it should have been so she wouldn't have known it was classified. More the fault of the sender than the recipient.

Spillage?
The emails were never marked classified even though they should have been. They contained information that was classified but it was not marked such as it should have been so she wouldn't have known it was classified. More the fault of the sender than the recipient.

Yes. An investigation is warranted even if the recipient was not the intended recipient. Read about marking classified material here: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf

Yes. An investigation is warranted even if the recipient was not the intended recipient. Read about marking classified material here: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf

I definitely think an investigation was warranted.

So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?

You have clearance?

So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?

You wouldnt have access to classified material without a clearance. When you do you have a clearance you would know not to do that. Your security manager would initiate the investigation if that happens. FBI investigates crimes.

So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?

It depends.  If you know (or suspect) the information is classified (marked or not), AND you don't report it to your security manager, AND/OR you disclose that information to someone who isn't cleared AND has no need to know, then YES, you can be thrown in jail.

There have been classified documents read into the Congressional record by members of Congress.  Nothing happened to the Congress-critters, because they have immunity for anything they say on the floor of their chamber.

There have also been classified documents posted to the Internet (WikiLeaks, etc.).  If you have a clearance, and you know the information you're viewing online is classified, you are violating your NDA.  You have no need to know, and for all you know, the information is DISinformation -- intended to catch government employees of guard or plant seeds of doubt in their minds about their loyalty to the government.

When WikiLeaks published the Clinton emails, everyone with a clearance was warned to stay away.  Even though the information is now in the public domain, it's still classified unless someone declassifies it.  You are still bound by the handing rules for classified info.  Joe Blow with no clearance can copy and paste it into emails, but you'll be guilty of violating the law.

You wouldnt have access to classified material without a clearance. When you do you have a clearance you would know not to do that. Your security manager would initiate the investigation if that happens. FBI investigates crimes.

Yup.  He (appears to be, or allegedly) playing "what if" games in something he doesn't have direct experience in.  Yeah, I guess technically someone can email a classified document from a secure system, or otherwise remove the file and transmit via unsecure system. 

Here's another clue, just because someone has clearance, doesn't mean they have access to SIPR, specifically email. . .

Yup.  He (appears to be, or allegedly) playing "what if" games in something he doesn't have direct experience in.  Yeah, I guess technically someone can email a classified document from a secure system, or otherwise remove the file and transmit via unsecure system. 

Here's another clue, just because someone has clearance, doesn't mean they have access to SIPR, specifically email. . .

There was evidence recorded in the Hildabeast email hearings that she ordered her staff to manually transfer messages from the classified network to the unclassified email system and send it to her.  Apparently she was having connection issues with the SIPR side, so she had her people retype the info on the "low side" so she could get a copy.

That shows a knowing and willing effort to circumvent administrative and technological measures to keep "high" and "low" side information physically separate -- basically causing a spillage to the unclassified network where her illegal email server and BlackBerry devices had access to the info.

If the messages didn't have classification markings after being transferred from high to low, that was intentional and in no way mitigates Clinton from knowing its classification when she knew where it originated.

She really should be in prison for breaking the law, and "intent" was provable no matter what Comey said.

.

It depends.  If you know (or suspect) the information is classified (marked or not), AND you don't report it to your security manager, AND/OR you disclose that information to someone who isn't cleared AND has no need to know, then YES, you can be thrown in jail.

There have been classified documents read into the Congressional record by members of Congress.  Nothing happened to the Congress-critters, because they have immunity for anything they say on the floor of their chamber.

There have also been classified documents posted to the Internet (WikiLeaks, etc.).  If you have a clearance, and you know the information you're viewing online is classified, you are violating your NDA.  You have no need to know, and for all you know, the information is DISinformation -- intended to catch government employees of guard or plant seeds of doubt in their minds about their loyalty to the government.

When WikiLeaks published the Clinton emails, everyone with a clearance was warned to stay away.  Even though the information is now in the public domain, it's still classified unless someone declassifies it.  You are still bound by the handing rules for classified info.  Joe Blow with no clearance can copy and paste it into emails, but you'll be guilty of violating the law.

Thank you for that context

There was evidence recorded in the Hildabeast email hearings that she ordered her staff to manually transfer messages from the classified network to the unclassified email system and send it to her.  Apparently she was having connection issues with the SIPR side, so she had her people retype the info on the "low side" so she could get a copy.

That shows a knowing and willing effort to circumvent administrative and technological measures to keep "high" and "low" side information physically separate -- basically causing a spillage to the unclassified network where her illegal email server and BlackBerry devices had access to the info.

If the messages didn't have classification markings after being transferred from high to low, that was intentional and in no way mitigates Clinton from knowing its classification when she knew where it originated.

She really should be in prison for breaking the law, and "intent" was provable no matter what Comey said.

So you are "alleging" that HRC knowingly and willfully broke laws regarding safeguards and HANDLING of classified material?  In which she and her staff admitted to?  Nooooo. . .

Then "what if" and "think about this/that" thought experiments no longer fun. . .

So you are "alleging" that HRC knowingly and willfully broke laws regarding safeguards and HANDLING of classified material?  In which she and her staff admitted to?  Nooooo. . .

Then "what if" and "think about this/that" thought experiments no longer fun. . .

Many believe themselves to be knowledgable in areas they have no training, education or experience in.  Part of that is because they believe the soundbites they get from the "news" are likely accurate and all they need to know on the subject, and/or the Internet/Google gives them ready access to all the information they will ever want making them just as smart as if they already read the Wiki page before entering a discussion.

They assume everyone else is at the same level as they are, so they are comfortable that nobody will question their "facts" and "understanding."  If they are questioned, they can Google the "sources" they used as "proof" what they said was true -- even though they got their facts from those sources making them nothing more than a Xerox copy of the webpage, not someone whose ideas and opinions were validated by an independent source.

The underlying cause of this is they don't want to be in a position where they have to admit they don't know something.  They have an opinion no matter how little they know of the issue.  It's based often on nothing more than an NPR news report that took them all of 15 seconds to broadcast.

People have become lazy.  Why learn when the totality of human knowledge and opinion is at your fingertips?  Kind of reminds me of the Matrix, only in a less productive sense:

"Can you fly one of these?"
"Not yet."
[begin chopper flight training program upload]

Don;t be lazy. "Google" with Dewey

Many believe themselves to be knowledgable in areas they have no training, education or experience in.  Part of that is because they believe the soundbites they get from the "news" are likely accurate and all they need to know on the subject, and/or the Internet/Google gives them ready access to all the information they will ever want making them just as smart as if they already read the Wiki page before entering a discussion.

They assume everyone else is at the same level as they are, so they are comfortable that nobody will question their "facts" and "understanding."  If they are questioned, they can Google the "sources" they used as "proof" what they said was true -- even though they got their facts from those sources making them nothing more than a Xerox copy of the webpage, not someone whose ideas and opinions were validated by an independent source.

The underlying cause of this is they don't want to be in a position where they have to admit they don't know something.  They have an opinion no matter how little they know of the issue.  It's based often on nothing more than an NPR news report that took them all of 15 seconds to broadcast.

People have become lazy.  Why learn when the totality of human knowledge and opinion is at your fingertips?  Kind of reminds me of the Matrix, only in a less productive sense:

"Can you fly one of these?"
"Not yet."
[begin chopper flight training program upload]

Easy for folks who do have experience and training in a subject to expose the "believers". . .